If you want the "POTS OFF THE REEFS" (can I get a Sticky?)

[njdiver]

A1519 Prohibits the use of certain fishing gear on artificial reefs.


Last Session Bill Number: A3986

Rible, David P. (R) as Primary Sponsor District 11
Albano, Nelson T. (D) as Co-Sponsor District 1
Wolfe, David W. (R) as Co-Sponsor District 10
Holzapfel, James W. (R) as Co-Sponsor District 10
Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr. (D) as Co-Sponsor District 18
McHose, Alison Littell (R) as Co-Sponsor District 24


1/8/2008 Introduced, Referred to Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee


Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee
(Group D)

Fisher, Douglas H. (D) Chair District 3
Albano, Nelson T. (D) Vice-Chair District 1
Amodeo, John F. (R)   District 2
Conaway, Herb (D)   District 7
Karrow, Marcia (D)   District 23




S336 Prohibits the use of certain fishing gear on artificial reefs.


Last Session Bill Number: S2635

Kean, Sean T. (R) as Primary Sponsor  District 11
Van Drew, Jeff (D) as Co-Sponsor  District 1


1/8/2008 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Environment Committee


Senate Environment Committee
(Group 3)

Smith, Bob (D) Chair  District 17
Van Drew, Jeff (D) Vice-Chair  District 1
Adler, John H. (D) District 6
Gordon, Robert M. (D)  District 38

[njdiver]

Senate Environment
Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 1:00 PM
Meeting - Committee Room 10, Third Floor, State House Annex, Trenton, NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S75 Hooked on Fishing-Not on Drugs-estab SEN 1/8/2008
S336 Fishing gear on artificial reefs-proh. SEN 1/8/2008


They might have to move it to another larger room on the first floor.

[njdiver]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They moved it:

Senate Environment Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 1:00 PM Meeting - Committee Room 6, First Floor, State House Annex, Trenton, NJ

Bill AbstractCurrent StatusLDOA

S75 Hooked on Fishing-Not on Drugs-estab SEN1/8/2008
S336 Fishing gear on artificial reefs-proh. SEN1/8/2008
S480 Soil contamination on sch. prop-concernsDiscussion Only SEN1/8/2008
S717 Underground storage tanks-concernsDiscussion Only SEN1/8/2008
S924 Coastal region-concernsDiscussion Only SEN1/28/2008
S1166 Stormwater util. sys.-concernsDiscussion Only SEN2/14/2008
S1167 Land-recreation & conserv. purpose;$8.4M SEN2/14/2008
S1168 Open space, park devel.;$54.917M SEN2/14/2008

[njdiver]

After a long afternoon, with seven other Bills ahead of ours and near two hours of testimony the Senate Environment Committee passed S336 on to the full Senate for its first reading. Step one in another long Legislative Process.

[IrishAyes]

Nice, on to the next step.  Let's hope they continue on the right course. 

[njdiver]

For anyone who would like to listen to the testimony:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/archive_audio2.asp?KEY=SEN&SESSION=2008

Click on Listen for Thursday, February 21, 2008.

Move the bar to 1:05:30 for the start of the testimony on S336.

[ped579]

What a great post.  I just listened to the whole thing and I tell you what this whole process will come down to some sort of compromise.  Not everyone will get everything they want but that might be a good thing for the state of NJ as a whole.  If it takes a new reef just for commercials why not help them. 

They do bring up some good points as does our side.  If they are put out of business in total the price of seafood would go through the roof like everything in this state of confusion.

Don't get me wrong I am for the angler here and rightly so but these commercial fisherman have a right as well only they are going about it all wrong.  The big problem in my mind is the DEP and again its mismanagement of the whole process from the start.

Just my opinion at this point in time.  Which has changed many times as I listen to both sides of the argument.  It would be a good idea if everyone would listen to this post as I did and then post your comments.  Like I said before my mind is flip flopping.  But the best solution I have heard so far is to help the commercial concerns build their little niche and let them proliferate or we will all loose something.

Paul

[njdiver]

Fight to save reefs from traps advancing

April 18, 2008


By JOHN GEISER
CORRESPONDENT


Recreational fishermen and divers who are trying to get commercial fish and lobster traps off the state's artificial reefs are making progress with the state Legislature.
Capt. Peter Grimbilas, chairman of Reef Rescue, said his group and dozens of other organizations are talking to legislators from both parties in an attempt to get a law passed prohibiting the commercial gear on reefs built with anglers' and divers' money. Bills have been introduced in both the Assembly and the Senate.

The commercial pot fishing industry — blackfish and lobsters — beat back a similar attempt in 2007 simply by persuading key Democratic legislators not to bring the legislation up for a vote.

Grimbilas is confident that the votes are there to get the measure passed since the impact of the gear on the reefs is so important to anglers and would minimally affect only a handful of commercial fishermen.

Bill Figley, former head of New Jersey's artificial reef program, said he and his staff, made up of Jeff Carlson, Hugh Carberry, and Barry Priem, made a study in 2005 of the pot fishery on eight of the state's 15 ocean reef sites.

Two of the reefs — Sandy Hook and Axel Carlson — lie in state waters. The others are in federal waters. Of the 14 reef sites, the Axel Carlson site is the most heavily used by commercial fishermen.

At the time the study was made, there were believed to be 341 pots on the site with 23,637 feet of runners or 4.4 miles criss-crossing the four-square-mile site.
The Sea Girt Artificial Reef, lying 3.5 nautical miles off Sea Girt, is only 1.3 square miles in area, but had an estimated 209 pots and 14,488 feet of runners on its bottom in 2005.

The density of pots was the highest of any reef site in the reef system, and the projected potential sea floor coverage by pot strings with a mean runner length of 1,525 feet left only six tiny areas without pot coverage.

The Sandy Hook Artificial Reef, with 1.4 square miles of area, had only 11 pots with an estimated 762 feet of runners on it in 2005.

New Jersey pots or strings of pots are not always marked by high flyers as some states require. It was learned by the state, from a poll of license holders in New Jersey, that 30 percent of the 214 commercial fishermen said that they occasionally set pots without marker flags.

Commercial fishermen used a lobbying firm last year to persuade the Democratic leadership not to post the bill for a vote. This year, Reef Rescue and the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance have hired a lobbying firm to persuade the Democrats to do the opposite.

Last year commercial fishermen asked for a compromise on the reef problem, but anglers rejected the proposal. This year the commercial sector has offered the same compromise.

Gregory DiDomenico of Garden State Seafood spelled out the alternatives that could be considered for the artificial reefs in state waters:

No fish pots on the reefs from May 1 to Oct. 1;

A vessel that is permitted and following current gear regulations to harvest lobsters using pots shall be required to use sinking groundlines in all of their lobster trawls;
All commercial pots will be required to comply with the new marking requirements including high flyers at both ends of the trawl and appropriate flag requirements as proposed by the state Department of Environmental Protection;

Lobster trawls will be limited to 25 pots;

Vessels engaged in the directed lobster fishery that are following legal gear requirements and vent sizes shall be held to a 50-pound possession limit of black sea bass during the May 1-Oct. 1 gear prohibition, even if the vessel is holding a limited entry permit for black sea bass (this 50-fish possession limit already exists for vessels without the BSB permit).

Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Atlantic, who is a key player in the reef situation, is concerned about commercial interests in his district, and he reached out to Reef Rescue recently asking for a meeting between anglers and the commercial industry.

Grimbilas wrote Van Drew that he understood the senator's objectives, but the compromise offered by Garden State Seafood is the same one offered June 5, 2007, which was unacceptable then and more so now.

"Reef Rescue firmly maintains that the position that the solution to this problem must conform to both federal Wallop-Breaux Sportfish Restoration Program rules and the objectives of New Jersey's reef program," he responded.

"We will not discuss any proposed solutions that do not conform to these standards," he emphasized. "These were the standards observed by New York, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas (and soon Delaware) when they resolved similar gear conflicts on their reefs."

In other words, money from the federal Wallop-Breaux fund must be used for recreational fishing enhancement purposes only. That is the law. The money cannot be used to support commercial fishing.

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...=2008804180331

[IrishAyes]

Thanks for the update Diver. 

[ped579]

 

[njdiver]

New state regulation to keep traps off reefs

BY John Geiser
STAFF COLUMNIST
July 13, 2008

There is more than one way to get commercial fish traps off the state's artificial reefs.

The will of the people has been thwarted in the state Legislature by two key Democratic lawmakers for nearly two years; so people are looking elsewhere for relief.

The state Division of Fish and Wildlife announced at Thursday's state Marine Fisheries Council meeting that it will provide it through a regulation to prohibit traps on the reefs.

Members of the Corzine administration as well as lawmakers from both houses of the Legislature recognize that it is neither right nor fair that anglers and scuba divers be denied access to artificial reefs built with recreational money.

Further, much of that money comes from a federal excise tax on fishing tackle. The law creating the tax specifically prohibits the use of that money for aiding and supporting the commercial industry.

The removal of the web of commercial gear that monopolizes the reefs will not come quickly. In fact, it will probably take months, and the process cannot begin until the state Marine Fisheries Council makeup changes.

Despite the fact that only a comparative handful of commercial fishermen actually set their gear on the reefs, the commercial industry adroitly used the political system to deny the majority access to the reefs.

Their first line of defense was the Marine Fisheries Council. It is theoretically made up of five commercial fishermen, four recreational fishermen and two members of the public at large. When the two public seats remained unfilled, the commercial sector won every vote, 5-4.

Anglers and divers patiently exhausted every avenue of appeal to logic and fairness in the council process, but were either outright rebuffed or mired in committee hearings and parliamentary maneuvers.

Frustrated and angered by the growing mass of traps, pot lines, flags and ghost gear on the reefs and the games commercial fishermen played on the council, recreational activists turned to the state Division of Fish and Wildlife and the state Legislature.

The division proposed a compromise … six months of use by the commercial sector and six months by the recreational sector. The state Legislature responded by introducing bills prohibiting the commercial gear on the reefs, and quickly pushed the legislation through committees, and received enormous bipartisan support before the two legislators prevented passage.

The division compromise was actually acceptable to neither the recreational nor commercial sides, but commercial fishermen, emboldened by assurance from the two legislators that the measure would never be brought to a vote, demanded more, including keeping lobster pots on the artificial reefs 12 months a year.

Finally, the state Department of Environmental Protection, fed up with the attitude of commercial fishermen, and seeing public interest in donating money and effort to reef building dwindling, as well as the possible illegal use of federal funds, decided to act through regulation.

Dr. Patrick Donnelly, a member of the state Marine Fisheries Council and as patient a man who ever sat through 30 meetings on the subject and listened to the arguments on both sides, said he was pleased to see the division take a stand.

"This is finally going in the right direction,'' he said. "There is no room for compromise any longer. This will be a total ban done through the administrative process.''

Donnelly explained that when the two newly appointed members representing the public at large soon take their seats on the council, the commercial lock on votes will no longer be a sure thing.

The council has the power to veto division regulations, but Donnelly believes the regulations will stand by a 6-5 vote.

"There is so much that went into this,'' he said. "All of the work by Reef Rescue, the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, the Jersey Coast Anglers Association and the thousands of people who wrote letters, sent e-mails and made phone calls has finally paid off.''

Donnelly said the most encouraging aspect of the matter is the division's position.

"They listened to all sides, weighed the information and stepped up to the plate,'' he said. "They did the right thing. This is something that recreational fishing needed to help reverse all of the negative things going on.''


http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080712/SPORTS06/80712053/1020/SPORTS06&template=column

[njdiver]

S336 Pots Off the Reefs, Passes NJ Senate Again!

On Thursday by a 32 to 4 vote. Here are the Legislators who voted aginst the bill:

Jim Whelan, (D) Dist 2, Northfield, NJ

Loretta Weinberg (D) Dist 37, Teaneck

Shirley Turner (D) Dist 15, Trenton

Joe Kyrillos (R) dist 13, Middletown

[IrishAyes]

Thanks for the update. 

[ped579]

 

[njdiver]

Speaker Roberts is once again the focus of attention. He has consistently prevented this bill from being heard in both the Assembly and the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. He needs to hear from us!

Assemblyman Joseph J. Roberts Jr.
Brooklawn Shopping Plaza
Rt. 130 South & Browning Rd.
Brooklawn, NJ 08030

PHONE NUMBER: (856) 742-7600

Fax: (856) 742-1831

Email: AsmRoberts@njleg.org

[Hotrod]

Email send ..   

[njdiver]

Pots Off the Reefs Bill reintroduced in NJ Assembly...

A1152http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1152

[IrishAyes]

 

[Capt. Birch]

Just a thought, my 2 cents.
First of all I do want the fish traps off the reef's OK so there's no confusion over that.
Now here's the conundrum.
Not all reefs have traps on them, do you know why? No ?
Give your NOAA charts a close look and you'll see designated areas for fish traps, these areas were there long before we started building the reef system. They are placing their traps where there supposed to. And it seems to me we placed our reefs on areas designated for the commercial guys, correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems to me a big bubo was made here -as to where the reefs were located and or we just didn't think or care. And discovered afterwards the nuisance of the trap gear.
So who's the bad guy here?
Like I said " just a thought"

  If I am not mistaken  and please  somebody with more direct knowledge speak up but the marks you see on most NOAA charts marked "fish traps" were pound net areas. Areas that were or are deemed a possible hazard to navigation and not marked just as "fishing areas". Also the placement and location of the reefs involved an amazing amount of study and hard work. In addition to distance from an inlet many other things went into their locations, such as they did want to place them near areas that already held fish attracting structures.  As far as not all reefs having pots on them I would say its a matter of economics. Guys fish lobster and fish pots differently.The bottom south of BI is mostly sand with very little contour. The most guys will place their gear the closest spot were they can catch(prior territory is a whole nother thing).If you are not seeing gear on the reef your fishing it maybe that the pot fisherman has much better fishing in deeper water.  Have a great day

[njdiver]

Just a thought, my 2 cents.
First of all I do want the fish traps off the reef's OK so there's no confusion over that.
Now here's the conundrum.
Not all reefs have traps on them, do you know why? No ?
Give your NOAA charts a close look and you'll see designated areas for fish traps, these areas were there long before we started building the reef system. They are placing their traps where there supposed to. And it seems to me we placed our reefs on areas designated for the commercial guys, correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems to me a big bubo was made here -as to where the reefs were located and or we just didn't think or care. And discovered afterwards the nuisance of the trap gear.
So who's the bad guy here?
Like I said " just a thought"

  If I am not mistaken  and please  somebody with more direct knowledge speak up but the marks you see on most NOAA charts marked "fish traps" were pound net areas. Areas that were or are deemed a possible hazard to navigation and not marked just as "fishing areas". Also the placement and location of the reefs involved an amazing amount of study and hard work. In addition to distance from an inlet many other things went into their locations, such as they did want to place them near areas that already held fish attracting structures.  As far as not all reefs having pots on them I would say its a matter of economics. Guys fish lobster and fish pots differently.The bottom south of BI is mostly sand with very little contour. The most guys will place their gear the closest spot were they can catch(prior territory is a whole nother thing).If you are not seeing gear on the reef your fishing it maybe that the pot fisherman has much better fishing in deeper water.  Have a great day

6.1.5 Conflict with Commercial Fisheries


Current commercially important trawling and sea clam or sea scallop dredging grounds will be avoided for reef construction. Areas historically avoided by these mobile fisheries, such as former fish havens and existing wrecks, will be selected where they meet other site selection criteria. Site boundaries will be oriented along latitude-longitude lines, where possible, to help commercial otter trawl and dredge vessels avoid reef sites. Efforts will be made by DEP to notify the commercial fishing industry of reef sites with bulletins, news releases and direct mailings. All reef sites are now clearly delineated as fish havens on NOAA nautical charts.



http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2005/reefplan05.pdf